For Gawds sake! What did Prince Charles DO??????

[tedzbear]

I am sick of all this snide beating around the bush. If you are going to libel, get on with it! Those of us who sneak looks at the National Enquirer during check out want to know!

(or must I wait until my next trip to the supermarket?)

:bounce:

[Newsjock]

1. The nasty, with a male servant

That's the claim.

[ronzo]

2. There are allegations of...

Gay rape. Sounds iffy to me. Disgruntled help. You'll probably find more about this in another thread.

[roguevalley]

3. He's been accused of bestiality. Someone saw him in bed with

Camilla. <humor off>

Google this and ask for the translation: Corriere della Sera

It might change it to English and you can see what the Italians
have published, which is rumored to be true.

[tedzbear]

6. I can't find nada!

This is an example of what I find:

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/GAY%20RUMOURS%20LEAD%20BRITISH%20PUBLIC%20TO%20SHUN%20PRINCE%20CHARLES


Somebody is trying to censor this one big time!

[ronzo]

9. There's a big gag in the British press.

But the cat's out of the bag. It's still unsubstantiated.

[RuB]

13. I love how they translate this article of Google

Schwarzenegger had promised during the campaign that, if elect, it would have made light on the vicissitude at least sixteen women, but could emerge of others, have accused the actor to have humiliated them sexually, often on the set cinematographic, lengthening the hands and taking embarrassing freedoms. The announcement of the car-inquiry has been made from the governor in person after that the attorney general of California (a democratic) had remembered public that the accusations emerged against Schwarzenegger "they are not destined to disappear alone".

[Don_G]

4. They're Implying

The Prince is a Queen without getting sued.

[roguevalley]

5. He wouldn't be the first. And there was/is? speculation about

Edward. They live in a fishbowl and now he's
getting gaffed. And of course, they handle it
with the usual savoire affaire.

Sort of puts paid his playboy youth and sheds
something else on his marriage.

[jonoboy]

7. think Bill & Monica

[incapsulated]

8. This is a variation on an old story

Where some former employee said he was raped by someone else and Charles covered it up.

I don't buy any of it.

:silly:

[snippy]

10. Probably got some Santorum on the Royal sheets.

For graphically offensive (to some) defintion of "Santorum" go here and read last two paragraphs. http://www.thestranger.com/2003-06-12/savage.html

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

11. The allegation is

made by George Smith (he gave an interview & signed an affadavit to the Mail on Sunday -- the Mail on Sunday wanted to print the story last week, but Matthew Fawcett took out an injunction against the paper on the grounds of libel.)

The Guardian - on Monday -- wanted to run a story saying that Matthew Fawcett had took out a libel injunction against the Mail and that this was of dubious legitimacy because usually in this country you publish something and then get sued for libel if you haven't got anything to substantiate your claims. Royal pressure was blamed. Anyway, the Guardian were also banned by a(nother) judge from naming Michael Fawcett (who was Charles' Chief of Staff until reasonably recently).

By this time, the rumour -- that George Smith claims to have seen Prince Charles and Michael Fawcett in bed together -- was doing the rounds on several republican sites over here (ThroneOut & Republic spring to mind). By Thursday it had gained a lot of traction, especially after the decision against the Guardian -- which allowed them to name Michael Fawcett -- was reversed.

Thursday night, Prince Charles issued a statement denying the allegations (which are still illegal to print in the UK, pending an appeal by the Mail on Sunday), which thoroughly confused most of the population. But Charles' actions meant that he could be named as the "senior royal" named in the allegation -- and that George Smith could be named as the guy making the allegation.

To confuse matters, following the collapse of the Burrell trial last year, it emerged that George Smith had previously made accusations of being raped by Mr Fawcett, which were investigated by the police and found no charges were brought. (there was some controversy over this, after it emerged that George Smith had been paid some £30,000).

The additional evidence for George Smith's claims is alleged to be on tapes made by Princess Diana.

That's the whole story in a nutshell. Given that the Italian press has reported this story yesturday, it is getting increasingly likely that the injunction will be dropped shortly, just to get things straight. Increasingly we see commentators over here trying to talk about the allegation, without mentioning it -- & basically just digging bigger holes (ie "well if I was accused of being, say, a paedophile...").

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

12. lol -- even your own Drudge is running it

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2n.htm

[peekaloo]

15. so Burrell (Diana's asst.) is lying when he says those charges against

him were dropped because the "Queen suddenly remembered the conversation where he told her about keeping Diana's stuff", but rather because he held evidence of Charlie's "philandering"?

:crazy:

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

16. well not Burrell

The trial was aborted when the Queen "remembered" a conversation she had with Burrell which exonnerated him. Quite what prompted her to remember that conversation is under dispute -- there have been many allegations that it was a means to silence Burrell when they feared that the Charles/Fawcett allegation might come out.

This whole saga is a sorry mess between ex-servants, Clarence House & the Tabloid press over here, fuelled by the Dianaphilia that far too many people suffer from. I'd like to think that we could one day have a sensible debate about abolishing the monarchy, but it seems like we're going to have to continue with the tittle-tattle & scandal.

[OneBlueSky]

14. "lookin' for love in all the wrong places" . . . n/t

.